Pressure-Transient Analysis of
Fracture-Calibration Tests
M.J. Mayerhofer,* Mining U. Leoben; C.A. Ehlig-Economides, SPE, Schlumberger;
and M.J. Economides, SPE, Texas A&M U.
Summary
Fracture-calibration pressure decline has been used for determina-
tion of the leakoff coefficient, a bulk variable describing the process
of fluid influx into the reservoir, normal to the created fracture face.
In this work, the fluid loss is modeled in terms of the controlling
mechanisms: flow through the filter cake, the invaded zone, and the
reservoir. A rigorous model describes unsteady-state fluid flow
from fractures of varying area into the formation, with the filter cake
considered as a time- and rate-dependent skin effect. The injection
history is superposed on the pressure decline. This work provides a
straight-line technique for determination of reservoir permeability
and fracture-face resistance. Log-log diagnostic plots provide the
means to recognize visually whether the transient response is domi-
nated by flow in the reservoir or at the fracture face. We found that
the pressure transient very frequently is dominated by the flow in the
reservoir rather than through the filter cake. The reservoir perme-
ability (an essential value for fracture design that is usually not
available) can be estimated, while the model captures all trends of
the falloff-pressure variation.
Introduction
The fracture-calibration treatment, also called an injection test or
"minifracture," frequently is conducted before the main stimulation
treatment. For the injection test, the fracturing fluid intended for the
main treatment is pumped at a constant rate of a sufficient magni-
tude to achieve fracturing pressure. After several minutes (usually
20 to 30) the pumps are shut off and the bottomhole pressure
declines as the fracture closes.
During pumping, while the fracture volume grows, some of the
fracturing fluid leaks off into the formation. After pumping ends, the
fluid leakoff into the formation continues until the fracture is closed.
Material balance, coupled with a model of propagation, permits
estimation of the rate of fluid loss during pumping. 1
The behavior of the pressure decline after the end of pumping has
been used to estimate the leakoff (fluid-loss) coefficient,2,3 with
techniques pioneered by Nolte. 3-5 Castillo,6 using Nolte's G-func-
tion for modeling the pressure-decline behavior, developed the
straight-line plot of the G-function vs. pressure. The slope of this
curve is used for the computation of the leakoff coefficient that is
independent of pressure.
The concept of the leakoff coefficient suffers from two distinct
and important issues: (I) it does not distinguish the controlling phe-
nomena and (2) it is pressure-dependent. Nolte? and Nolte et al. 8
recognized this and offered a lengthy list of diagnostic and qualita-
tive responses for a variety of phenomena that may explain depar-
tures from the G-function straight line.
Fluid loss occurs normal to the fracture face through the filter cake
and into an invaded zone that does not extend more than a few centime-
ters into the formation. Outside the filtrate-invaded zone, the pressure
perturbation resulting from injection may extend for a significant dis-
tance into the formation. Within this entire zone, the fluid-flow stream-
lines are primarily parallel and normal to the fracture face, implying lin-
ear flow. This notion suggests that the injection-test pressure-decline
response should be sensitive to the formation permeability.
'Now with Union Pacific Resources.
Copyright 1995 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Nov. 8, 1993. Revised manuscript received Dec.
17,1994. Paper accepted for publication Dec. 19,1994. Paper (SPE 26527) first presented
at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Oct. 3-<;.
JPI' March 1995
In tight formations with permeabilities < 1 md for oil and 0.01 md
for gas, a conventional well test cannot be performed because the
reservoir may not even flow without hydraulic fracture stimulation.
However, reservoir permeability is an essential parameter for deter-
mining the optimum fracture size. 9 Mayerhofer et al. 10 - 12 published
results of a series of experiments to show the nature of flow through
the fil ter cake.
Our paper describes a model that decouples the reservoir and filter-
cake behavior as flow in the formation from an infinite-conductivity
fracture 13 with a rate- and time-dependent skin effect analogous to the
Cinco-Ley and Samaniego-V.14 fracture-face-damage skin effect.
In modem well-test interpretation, log-log diagnostic plots of the
pressure change and the derivative function are used to distinguish
various flow regimes, which develop characteristic patterns. Once
the flow regime is identified, specialized plots are used to compute
important well or reservoir parameters. The governing filtration
model can be analyzed in the same manner. By estimating the vari-
able leakoff rate for fracturing-fluid leakoff during fracture closing,
the rate-normalized pressure and its derivative can be used as the
diagnostic tool for flow-regime identification.
Model for Pressure-Transient Behavior
The total pressure gradient from the fracture into the reservoir is
given by
Gringarten and Ramey's 13 early-time infinite-conductivity verti-
cal fracture solution is given by
PD = jmDif = ja,nkt/J1c,x} ..................... (2)
and, in dimensional form, by
/:"P = (a pqJ1/khp) ja,nkt/J1c,x]. .................. (3)
The Cinco-Ley and Samaniego-v.14 fracture-face skin effect is
modified to account for a varying fracture-face resistance:
s = nkR,j2xJ = [nkRoRD(t)]/2xJ, .................. (4)
where RD(t) = R,.IRo is a normalized resistance accounting for the
approximate increase of the fracture-face resistance,
(5)
At the end of pumping, RD,m = I. The pressure change (gradient)
during pumping with varying fracture area and varying leakoff rate
is obtained by combining Eqs. 1 through 5:
/:"p(t m ) = p ,p(tm )
= 4a
P
ja, n[ ~(
J1
kc,
qlj _ qlj-I)
LA.
j= I
A.
p.} p.}-I
~]
Vtn - tj _ 1
The summation in Eq. 6 represents the superposition of pressure
drops in the formation resulting from each incremental change of
leakoff velocity, %IAp,j, during injection.
The leakoff rate during fracture propagation, %' through the total
area, Ap,j (area of two fracture faces and two wings), at any time fj
229
can be calculated for the reference area A = Ap,j . For the upper TABLE 1-OIL AND GAS RESERVOIR
bound, PRESSURE COMPONENTS

qlj(tj,Ap,j) = [3(Vi - Vrc)Apj]/2Ap,m M, ......... (7a) Input data

Pumping time, minutes 20
and for the lower bound, Volume injected, bbl 400
PKN geometry
qIAtj,Ap,j) = [(vi - Vrc)Ap,j]/ Ap,m M, ........... (7b) Xf, ft
i1r= hp, ft (at the end of pumping)
500
70
E', psi 4x106
where Vrc = cfAAPw - Pc) .......................... (8)
f3 0.75
is calculated from the closing period. The changing fracture area Net shut-in pressure, psi 500
during pumping, Ap,j' cancels out when Eqs. 7a and b are inserted cp 0.1
into Eq. 6. At, the total fracture area of one fracture face, is related /1f, cp 0.5
to Ap by Ap = 2rpAf' The rate during closing, qFj' is given by ct, psi- 1
Oil reservoir 1x10-5
Gas reservoir 2x10-4
/1, cp
The pressure change during fracture closing is then obtained by sub- Oil reservoir 1.0
tracting the pressure response during pumping from the total value Gas reservoir 0.022
during fracture closing: Oil Reservoir
Ro I!.Ptace I!.PR I!.p
(ftlmd) (psi) (psi) (psi)
At k=0.1 md 0.3 284 8,766 9,070
3 2,840 8,766 11,626
At k=1 md 0.3 284 2,778 3,062
3 2,840 2,778 5,618
At k=10 md 0.3 284 878 1,162
3 2,840 878 3,718

+ [~(qFj
L A . _ A. ~]
qFj-I) ytn - t j _1 Ro
Gas Reservoir
I!.Ptace I!.PR I!.p
j=m p.} p.}-I (ftlmd) (psi) (psi) (psi)
At k=0.01 md 0.3 284 921 1,205

[ ~(
3 2,840 921 3,761
- L qlj -
~
qlj-I ) j tm
A-:- - tj _ 1] At k=0.1 md 0.3 284 290 574
j= 1 p.} p,}-I 3 2,840 290 3,130
At k=1 md 0.3 284 91 375
3 2,840 91 2,931
+ (2ap,ufJrRo/Ap,m)(RD.nqFn - RD,mqlm)' ..... (10)

Initial reservoir pressure, Pi, cancels out. Eq. 10 can be solved itera-
tively for the pressure change, I!.p(tn), by use of qFj (Eq. 9) for any
time tn > tm, thereby providing the pressure falloff vs. time. Inserting
Eq. 9 and the leakoff rates during pumping (Eq. 7) into Eq. 10 leads
to an expression that can be solved iteratively for I!.p(tn) and tn.
Eq. 10 satisfies the physics of filtration and linear elastic fracture
mechanics while preserving the material balance. It is related to the
physical properties Ro and k, but, unlike the G-function, it does not
require knowledge of a constant leakoff coefficient at any time.
Traditionally, specific leakoff coefficients have been postulated for
separate phenomena, such as those controlled by compressibility and
viscosity. In those cases, individual zones have been combined as
conductances in series. A simple (harmonic average) and some more-
complicated averaging techniques l5 have been used to calculate the
combined leakoff coefficient. Instead, Eq. 10 addresses the individual
pressure gradients (Eq. I) in their correct relative contribution, and
the components are added as resistances in series. This approach is
straightforward because the solutions are given by well-known mod-
els that have been used frequently in well-test applications.
Relative Contributions of the Pressure Components
Eq. 6 is used to calculate the total pressure gradient from the fracture
(assumed to be equal to that in the weUbore) into the reservoir and the
pressure gradients of the individual components during pumping. The
first term of the right side of Eq. 6 represents the pressure drop in the
formation. In the last term, the filter cake and the filtrate-invaded
zone are combined as a fracture-face skin effect or resistance (I!.Pjace
in Eq. I). Resistance Ro is the reference resistance at the end of pump-
ing. Table 1 presents pressures calculated after 20 minutes of pump-
ing. Reservoir permeability varied from 0.1 to 10 md for an oil and
from 0.01 to I md for a gas reservoir, with a low and a high fracture-
face resistance (Ro = 0.3 and 3 filmd, respectively). The calculations in
Table I were made for the same totalleakoff volume during pumping.
Results for the oil reservoir show that for permeability up to I md,
the pressure gradient in the reservoir dominates. Only an inordinately
high fracture-face resistance (laboratory values for crosslinked poly-
mer fluids were found to range between 0.3 and 1.5 filmd after 20
minutes of filtration JO) and a permeability > I md can result in a
dominant skin component. In the case of a gas reservoir, the skin com-
ponent may dominate for permeabilities as low as 0.01 md, depend-
ing on the value of the resistance. And, yet, as a case study described
later and results of other field applications of the technique show, the
reservoir and not the filtercake resistance often dominates, even in gas
wells. This suggests that field filtercake resistances are much lower
than laboratory-derived values.
This analysis shows that the individual components can be quan-
tified and related. As Table 1 shows, the relative contributions can
be distributed at any ratio, dependent on the reservoir (often primar-
ily) and the filtercake properties. This result is not apparent when the
concept of totalleakoff coefficient is used and is not in accord with
other publications. 8,15
Fracture-face resistances in Table 1 are laboratory-derived (filter-
cake resistance) and thus should be considered as ideal, maximum
values that assume even distribution and deposition of the filter cake
throughout the created-fracture walls. In reality, such a deposition is
unlikely, resulting in an even greater reservoir influence on leakoff.
An important implication from the results in Table 1 is the indica-
tion that this analysis may determine whether fluid-loss additives
are required in the design of the main fracture treatment. For homo-
geneous, lower-permeability reservoirs, artificialleakoff control is
an unnecessary expense. This consideration would allow lowering
of the fracturing-fluid viscosity only enough to achieve the required

230 March 1995. JPI'

minimum for proppant transport, thus reducing the treatment costs TABLE 2-SIMULATION INPUT DATA
and, especially, proppant-pack residual damage.
Pumping time, minutes 35
Diagnostic Plot Computation Volume injected, bbl 500
PKN geometry
Borrowing from the proven method for analysis of simultaneous xf, ft 500
measured sandface rate and pressure, the behavior of the model for ht=hp, ft 70
pressure decline was examined both for ll.p and its derivative and E', psi 4x106
for rate-normalized pressure change, ll.prn, and the ll.Prn derivative. 0.75
For this analysis, ll.p is given by p(tn) - p(tm) and its derivative is f3
Net shut-in pressure, psi 600
taken with the natural logarithm of elapsed time tn - tm . ll.Prn is
rp 0.1
computed as
Ct, psi- 1 1x10-5
!-I,CP 1.0
!-If, cp 0.5
where the leakoff rates are computed as the downhole rate at the end
of pumping from Eq. 7 for q/(tm) and from Eq. 9 for qF(tn)' The com- Likewise, the more the fracture-face pressure drop dominates the
pliance is determined by assuming a model for fracture propagation. response, the more accurate the determination of Ro. Again, fortu-
The ll.Prn derivative is also taken with respect to the naturalloga- nately, Ro is determined most accurately for those cases where
rithm of the elapsed time during falloff. knowledge of whether viscosity and filtercake additives are effec-
tive in minimizing leakoff is most essential.
Sensitivity Analysis When permeability is sufficiently low, the emphasis in designing
Data from Table 2 are used in the following simulations. the main fracture treatment is to use the permeability value for deter-
mining the optimum fracture size. When the reservoir permeability
Reservoir Permeability. Fig. 1 illustrates the influence of the res- is only moderately low (or greater), the job design focus is on leakoff
ervoir permeability on ll.p and its derivative. The response appears control where Ro is the more important design parameter.
as unit slope in early time, with departure from unit slope at increas-
ing values as permeability is decreased for ll.p and its derivative Fracture Area. Fig. 3 shows the sensitivity of ll.Prn and the ll.Pm
derivative to fracture area. The plot shows a parallel shift to the right
near the time of fracture closure.
for increasing fracture area, which indicates that only the correct
Fig. 2 shows that the ll.Prn and its derivative are much more sensi-
tive to variations in permeability. At low permeability, the deriva- fracture area in the analysis will provide a match for the data
tive response follows a straight line of slope one-half. As permeabil- response. As such, the pressure-decline analysis provides a means
to verify the fracture-propagation model.
ity increases, the ll.Prn and ll.Prn-derivative curves spread farther
apart and the early-time departure from the half slope becomes more
Specialized Plot
pronounced.
The results in Figs. I and 2 suggest that ll.Pm and, especially, Diagnostic plots provide a definitive interpretation as to which com-
ll.Prn-derivative behavior can indicate when the response is domi- ponent of the pressure gradient dominates. The specialized plot is
nated by the pressure drop near the fracture face and when it is domi- used to quantify reservoir permeability and fracture-face resistance.
nated by the pressure drop in the reservoir. Intuitively, the more the Dividing Eq. 10 by (qFnRD,n - q/mRD,m) leads to a straight line when
response is dominated by the pressure drop in the reservoir, the more plotting the term on the left side vs. the summation term divided by
accurate will be the value of permeability determined from the analy- (qFnRD,n - q/mRD,m) on the right side. The reservoir permeability is
sis. Although fortuitous, it is fortunate that the most-accurate perme- calculated from the slope m by
ability determination occurs for very low permeability values because
they pose the most severe challenge to conventional pressure-tran- k = 84.22 (7f/-l/r/>c r m2 ) ........................... (12)
sient testing. in oilfield units. Ro (in ftlmd) is calculated from the Intercept b:

R = b/282.47f/-l j . ............. , .............. (13)

---........
'in
~
Interpretation Method
c..
c:
k=O.1 md
~
:
. . .........
.. '
~
The following outlines the sequence of interpretation .
1. Data acquisition. Acquire pressure-falloff data, preferably in
.0
~ ______ ~ 11._,:... small sample intervals.
~""'1'
to)
c:
.a unit slope 2. Computation and plotting. Compute and plot the log-log diag-
III
>
_,l:'; I k= 10 md nostic plot (with a reasonable estimate for Af based on injected vol-
ume) of ll.Pm and its derivative function vs. time to assess the rela-
+=i
cv 100 ............ .. ........1............ .......... ................ ..
> tive importance of the reservoir and skin pressure-drop behavior
c
III and to detect any deviations from expected behavior as seen on the
"C
"C
sensitivity plots in Figs. 1 through 3. (These could be the result of a
c: change in the fracture area during closing or of perforation-friction
cv - - - pressure
c.. pressure drop unaccounted for during the injection phase.)
<I
... - derivative 3. Simulation. Simulate the pressure-derivative function with the
estimated area and reasonable assumptions of Ro and permeability,
and correct the initial estimate of fracture area by matching the ear-
10 ly-time derivative data.
4. Specialized plot. Estimate reservoir permeability and fracture-
1 10
face resistance.
time (min)
5. Simulation. Match the pressure change and derivative function
in a log-log plot and compare the simulated pressure history with the
Fig. 1-Pressure and derivative plot: influence of permeability. measured one.

JPT March 1995 231

9'
@.
1 ---k=O.l md
9'@. , - - - Ap _ 80,000 ft2

- . - . - k= 1 md iAPrn
-- --
.,:.~.:~:'1~::
'iii 'iii
a.. 0.
Q) 0.1 Q)
> > 0.1
~ ~
>
.;:: >
.;::

~ ' 'J\'~'~ :':,-': ............

Q) Q)

i
"0 "0
E
0.01
~c:
. , ,. ,'r 0.01
c: ; I' .. ' ,
tU ,. ,.... ""'-L tU
E !derivative
derivative
.% ." .%
0.001 0.001
0.1 1 10 100 0.1 10 100
time (min) time (min)

Fig. 2-Rate-normalized plot: influence of reservoir permeability. Fig. 3-Rate-normalized plot: influence of fracture area.

Gas Reservoir Field Case Study

-"""
This is the analysis of a fracture-calibration treatment perfonned in 'iii pressure
a tight gas reservoir with a penneability < 0.005 md. 15 Table 3 gives 0.
-1000 ... -. __ ........................... _............ .
the reservoir and treatment variables. The first step in the interpreta-
derivative
tion is a log-log plot of the /':,.p and its derivative function (Fig. 4). At ~
= 150 minutes, the derivative slope suddenly changes from a very '+=i
nI
small value to unit slope. This behavior is diagnosed as fracture clo- >
c
sure and is con finned by independent analysis l5 ; therefore, the net (1)
"C
fracture pressure is 800 psi. As Ref. 15 indicates, Perkins-Kern-Nord-
"C
gren (PKN) geometry is the most-appropriate propagation model. At c: 100 ............................ ~ji8 .. j--.. ...... fracture closure ......
nI
first, the penneable fracture area is estimated to be 107,520 ft2. i .SD
The /':,.Prn and /':,.Pm derivative can now be plotted vs. time in a log- 0.
<l
log plot by use of Eq. 11 for the given treatment data and the mea-
sured pressure falloff (Fig. 5).The /':,.Pm shows a clear half-slope re-
sponse for almost the entire closing period; the derivative also
shows the half-slope trend. This indicates that the reservoir over-
whelmingly controls the pressure falloff and the fracture-face resis- 10
tance will be relatively small in comparison with the reservoir, 1 10 100
which is in contrast to the Ref. 15 statement that the filter cake gen- time (min)
erally controls the filtration for gas reservoirs. In the next step, the
first estimate of the fracture area must be verified and corrected if Fig. 4-Gas reservoir case study: log-log plot of pressure
necessary. A simulation is performed with the above assumption of change and derivative.
fracture area. The match clearly shows that the estimated fracture
area was too high [the calculated pressure derivative is below the
measured one (Fig. 6)]. The simulation is repeated for smaller areas,
md, which is a reasonable value on the basis of laboratory experi-
and the best fit of the early-time data was found to be for a permeable
area of 82,000 ft2. ments. 1O A simulation of /':,.P and its derivative can now be per-
Fig. 7 shows the specialized plot. Reservoir permeability is esti- formed with the reservoir data and the results from the specialized
mated from Eq. 12 and is found to be 0.003 md, which agrees with plot. Fig. 6 also shows the match with the measured data and shows
the values found in this reservoir. The fracture-face resistance at the excellent agreement.
end of pumping is estimated from Eq. 13 and is found to be 0.56 ftf The total pressure gradient at the end of pumping is calculated by
Eq. 6 and is found to be 1,880 psi, which is in good agreement with
TABLE 3-GAS RESERVOIR CASE STUDY (from Ref. 15) the 1,950 psi specified in Ref. 15. This reservoir pressure can be cal-
Pumping time, minutes
culated by subtracting the gradient from the fracture pressure.
100
Volume injected, bbl
Fig. 8 plots simulated and measured pressure data vs. G-function.
500
PKN geometry The simulated data obviously match the concave curve exactly, where-
ht, ft 60 as the conventional analysis (straight line through the closure pressure,
hp , ft 32 or three-quarter rule of the slope) is a tangential approximation.
E', psi 4x106
Discussion
{3 0.77
Net shut-in pressure, psi 800 This work shows that the claim made in the literature that the pres-
</> 0.06 sure drop between the fracture pressure and the pressure in the
ct, psi- 1 3.3x10-4 fonnation during a fracture-calibration test takes place almost total-
!I,cp 0.022 ly at the fracture face is a misconception. Interest in detennining the
!If, cp 0.5 reservoir permeability from the injection-test pressure-decline re-
sponse has been discouraged by this claim except in extreme cir-
cumstances when effectively no filter cake was thought to exist.

232 March 1995 JlYf

 1600
!1Prn measured
0-I 1
!1Prn derivative 1400
!B. ,...... - - simulation
--
'iii
a.
'iii
a.
.......- 1200 .......... l .................:
~

Q)
> -----------------------(------------------------r--------------------------- ....
(I)

0.1 ::I
~
>
'':::
Q)
. ~
I/)
I/)

....
(I)

0-
1000 -------7 ! closure

G-function straight-line
"0

ic:
til
0.01 .__. j.............
1
800

600
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
G-function
0.001
Fig. 8-Gas reservoir case study: comparison of the G-function
0.1 1 10 100 straight line and response calculated by the model in this paper.
time (min)
Recent work by Gu et al.!6 demonstrates the interest in perme-
Fig. 5-Rate-normalized pressure plot: gas reservoir case study. ability determination. However, Gu et al.'s suggestion that impulse-
test analysis can be applied to injection tests in the same manner as
it applies for much shorter injection times requires consideration of
the length of time needed to establish pseudoradial flow. When the
fracture created by the injection test is ~ 50 ft, it may take several
Ap= 82,000 ftl
hours, or even days, to observe the onset of pseudoradial flow. Yet,
~1000
a.
'-' Ro= 0.56 ftlmd the linear flow response may occur (as in the second field case study
c in this work) within minutes of closure. In that case, analysis after
0 k= 0.003 md closure offers independent confirmation of kx/.
'zj
u
C
.....::I Conclusions
(I)
> This paper demonstrates that analysis of the pressure decline fol-
'zj
IV 100 lowing the injection test in a fracture-calibration treatment can yield
>
''::: the formation permeability, the filtercake resistance, the area of the
(I)
"0
created fracture, and the reservoir pressure.
"0 The analysis uses the log-log diagnostic plot of the rate-normal-
C
IV ized pressure calculated with leakoff rates computed from material
0- A p= balance and fracture compliance considerations and the llPrn deriv-
<l
k= 0.002 md ative with respect to the logarithm of elapsed time between the end
of pumping and fracture closure. Sensitivity studies have shown that
10 this plot clearly indicates when the treatment behavior is dominated
1 10 100 by the effects of the filter cake and when it is dominated by the tran-
time (min) sient-pressure response associated with linear flow in the formation.
The reservoir permeability and the fracture-face resistance are com-
Fig. 6-Gas reservoir case study: match of pressure change and puted by use of a specialized plot with axes defined to provide a
derivative straight line for all the data acquired during the pressure decline up
to the time of fracture closure. The results are verified on a plot of
~
7000 the pressure change and its derivative that shows that the measured
'iii
~
a. data match a simulation of the pressure response by the model for
pressure decline provided in this paper.
~
c 6000 ---
m= 1460 Values for permeability and fracture-face resistance frequently
ci
ct:
E are not, and often cannot be, determined by any other procedure.
.
rT
c
ci
5000 -b= 2678
Nomenclature
ct:
u.
c
Af= fracture area (one face), L2 ft 2
0-
:::::- 4000 Ap= permeable fracture area, L2. ft2
a. RO= 0.56 ftlmd
b= intercept in Eq. 7
<l
q= fracture compliance, U 2/m, psi-!
: :

3000 --- 0.003 md+ c(= total compressibility, U2/m, psi-!

E'= elastic modulus, mlLt 2, psi, Pa
G= dimensionless loss function
2000 fracture height, L, ft
hf=
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 hp = permeable fracture height, L, ft
L k= reservoir permeability, L2, md
Pc= fracture closure pressure, mlLt 2, psi
PD= dimensionless pressure
Fig. 7-Gas reservoir case study: specialized plot. Pi= initial reservoir pressure, mlLt 2, psi
Pw= wellbore pressure at shut-in, mlLt 2, psi
.JPl' March 1995 233
 !l.p = total pressure gradient, mlLt2, psi paper SPE 22873 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical Confer-
!l.Pface = pressure gradient at the fracture face, mlLt2, psi ence and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
!l.Pcake = pressure gradient across the filtercake, mlLt2, psi 12. Zeilinger, S., Mayerhofer, M.J., and Economides, M.J.: "A Comparison
!l.Prn = rate-normalized pressure change, mlL2, psilB-D ofthe Fluid-Loss Properties of Borate-, Zirconate-Crosslinked and Non-
Crosslinked Fracturing Fluids," paper SPE 23435 presented at the 1991
!l.PR = transient pressure gradient in reservoir, mlLt2, psi
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, KY, Oct. 22-25.
qFj = leakoff rate during closing, L3/t, bbllD 13. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan,R.: "Unsteady-State
%= leakoff rate during pumping, L3/t, bbllD Pressure Distributions Created by a Well With a Single Infinite-Conduc-
Tp = ratio of permeable to fracture area tivity Vertical Fracture," SPEI (Aug. 1974) 347; Trans., AIME, 257.
RD = normalized filtercake resistance, dimensionless 14. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V., E: "Transient Pressure Analysis: Fi-
Rs = filtercake resistance, IlL, ftlmd nite-Conductivity Fracture Case vs. Damaged-Fracture Case," paper
Ro = reference filtercake resistance at end of SPE 10179 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
pumping, IlL, ftlmd Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 4-7.
Sfs = fracture-face skin effect IS. Gidley, J.L. et al.: Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE Mono-
tDxf= dimensionless time graph Series, Richardson, TX (1989) 12.
tm = pumping time, t, hours 16. Gu, H. et al.: "Formation Permeability Determination Using Impulse-
Fracture Injection," paper SPE 25425 presented at the 1993 SPE Produc-
tn = total time from start of injection (fracture propaga-
tion Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, March 21-23.
tion), t, hours
Vi = injected volume, L3 ft 3
VLc = volume lost during fracture closing, L3, ft 3 51 Metric Conversion Factors
Xf= fracture half-length, L, ft bbl x 1.589 873 E - 01 = m3
ap = constant = 141.2 in oilfield units cp x 1.0* E - 03 = Pa . s
at = constant = 0.000264 in oilfield units ftx3.048* E-Ol=m
f.l = reservoir fluid viscosity, .mlLt, cp ft 2 x 9.290 304* E-02 =m 2
f.lf= filtrate viscosity, mILt, cp md x 9.869 233 E-04 =f.lm 2
rp = porosity psi x 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
psi-I x 1.450 377 E-Ol =kPa- 1
Subscripts
j = time interval
m = pumping time interval Michael J. Mayerhofer is an engineer with Union Pacific Re-
n = total time interval from start of injection sources in Fort Worth. Before joining Union Pacific Resources, he
was involved in hydraulic fracturing research at Mining U. Leo-
Acknowledgments ben, Leoben, Austria. Mayerhofer holds Dipl.lng. and PhD de-
grees in petroleum engineering, both from Mining U. Leoben.
We thank E. Brown for providing field data and Schlumberger for Christine Ehlig-Economides is a reservoir engineering manager in
their support. the Interpretation Dept. of Schlumberger Well Services in Hous-
ton. Previously, she was head of layered-reservoir testing at the
References Schlumberger Perforating & Testing Center in Houston; before
1. Nolte, K.G.: "Fracture Design Considerations Based on Pressure Analy-
that, she was head of the Dynamic Reservoir Description Section
sis," SPEPE (Feb. 1988) 22. of Flopetrol Johnston Schlumberger in France. She is former head
2. Carter, R.D.: "Appendix to Optimum Fluid Characteristics for Fracture of the Petroleum Engineering Dept. at the U. of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Extension," G.C. Howard and C.R. Fast, presented at the 1957 API Mid- Ehlig-Economides holds a BA degree in mathematical sciences
Continental Dist. Spring Meeting, Tulsa. from Rice U., an MS degree in chemical engineering from the U.
3. Nolte, K.G.: "Determination of Fracture Parameters From Fracture Pressure of Kansas, and a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from
Decline," paper SPE 8341 available from SPE, Richardson, TX (1979). Stanford U. The 1995--96 Executive Editor of SPE Formation Evalua-
4. Nolte, K.G.: "A General Analysis of Fracturing Pressure Decline With tion and 1994-95 chairman of the Forum Series Committee, she
Application to Three Models," SPEFE (Dec. 1986) 571. received the 1982 Distinguished Achievement Award for Petro-
5. Nolte, K.G.: "Determination of Proppant and Fluid Schedules From leum Engineering Faculty. Michael J. Economides is the Noble
Fracturing Pressure Decline," SPEPE (July 1986) 255. Professor of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M U. Previously, he
6. Castillo, J .L.:"Modified Fracture Pressure Decline Analysis Including was Chaired Professor of Petroleum Engineering and Director of
Pressure-Dependent Leakoff," paper SPE 16417 presented at the 1987 the Inst. of Drilling & Production at Mining U. Leoben; before that,
SPE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, May 18-19. he held positions with Dowell Schlumberger in Houston and Lon-
7. Nolte, K.G.:"Fracture Pressure Analysis for Nonideal Behavior,"lPT don and at the U. of Alaska, Fairbanks. He holds BS and MS
(Feb. 1991) 210; Trans., AIME, 291. degrees in chemical engineering and a PhD degree in petro-
8. Nolte, K.G., Mack, M.G., and Lie, W.L.: "A Systematic Approach for leum engineering from Stanford U. Economides was a 1991-92
Applying Fracturing Pressure Decline: Part I," paper SPE 25845 pre- Distinguished Lecturer, 1992-93 Review Chairman, 1987-88 chair-
sented at the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability man of the Technology Today Series Committee, and 1986-87
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, April 26-28. chairman of an Annual Meeting Technical Committee.
9. Meng, H-Z. and Brown, K.E.: "Coupling of Production Forecasting,
Fracture Geometry Requirements and Treatment Scheduling in the Opti-
mum Hydraulic Fracture Design," paper SPE 16435 presented at the
1987 SPE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, May 18-19.
10. Mayerhofer, M.J., Economides, M.J., and Nolte, K.G.: "Experimental
Study of Fracturing Fluid Loss," paper CIMIAOSTRA 91-92 presented
at the Annual Technical Conference of the Petroleum Soc. of CIM and
AOSTRA, Banff, April 21-24.
II. Mayerhofer, MJ., Economides, M.J., and Nolte,K.G.: "An Experimen-
tal and Fundamental Interpretation of Filtercake Fracturing Fluid Loss," Mayerhofer Ehllg-Economides Economides

234 March 1995 JPT